Mark Reason: How two World Cup refs blundered over Beaudy
We have now reached the point where the game of rugby must admit that the laws are as mushily entangled as a bowl of overcooked spaghetti. The crowds seethe with all sorts of real and imagined justices, the players are confused and sometimes even the referees do not know what is going on. There was no better example of this general bewilderment than an event which took place in the match between the Crusaders and the Blues last weekend. It happened in the first five minutes of the match so no one could cite tiredness as an excuse for the mass muddle that then ensued. Richie Mounga took a penalty and sent a fine kick over the touchline. Beauden Barrett, who was standing in touch, leapt spectacularly and palmed the ball back into play. Barrett then landed with both feet in touch and play was waved on. The assistant referee on that touchline was Ben OKeeffe. He was one of the 12 referees selected to adjudicate at last years World Cup. OKeeffe crouched and scrutinised Barretts athletic contortions and signalled that all was well. READ MORE: * Damian McKenzie leads eight Kiwis in Super Rugby away team of decade * Eddie Jones renews call for two referees after rugby breakdown concerns * All Blacks coach Steve Hansen defends Beauden Barrett: 'They all do it' The referee for the game was Paul Williams. He was the other New Zealander selected to join the elite 12 at last years World Cup. In other words these are the best referees in the country. Williams also had a good view of the action. He also let the Blues regain possession and carry on playing. On the sideline Jeff Wilson was enthusing; Just to watch this from Beauden Barrett. The ability to get up in the air. The skills to put the ball back into play. The other commentators all went along with this and not one of them raised a red flag. Maybe they are not paid to know the laws of rugby. The plain fact is that everyone got it wrong. Even the most experienced officials did not have a grasp of the law. And the commentators, who have seen many a law come and go in their time, did not have a clue. If I was the head of Sky, I would get my commentators to go on a reffing course, because they spout ignorance week after week. But all of this acceptance made me doubt myself. I remembered Jordie Barrett keeping a ball in against the Chiefs under similar circumstances. But Jordie leapt from in touch, caught the ball and landed back in the field of play. Under law 18, amended in 2018, that is legal. When I went back to these laws, just as I had suspected, there was nothing legal about Beaudens manoeuvre because he had both jumped and landed in touch. That makes sense or we would have players sitting in the stands, jumping from their seat and batting the ball back into play. Bryce Lawrence, the national referee manager for New Zealand Rugby, told Stuff; Law 18.2 a, b, c and d covers these actions. The referee team got the Beaudy decision wrong as he would have needed to catch the ball and land in the field of play for it to be play on. It's a complicated decision making process and we have clarified this with teams this week. And thats the trouble. Its a complicated decision making process and there are far too many of them in rugby. Golf has recently cleaned up its laws and rugby needs to do the same. For example a referee often awards a penalty and declares; the ruck had formed. Well, who is to know half the time. Certainly not the players. They are moving at high speed, they may be exhausted and they are getting subtly changing directives each week. The game would be far clearer if we went back to the old ruck laws. When the ball is on the ground, then a ruck is formed and it can only be played by feet. Everyone literally knew where they stood. Asked if there had been an improvement after the heavily penalised first round of Super Rugby Aotearoa, Patrick Tuipolutu, the Blues captain, said; I wouldn't say improvement, but just different pictures and different clarity. We train a different picture during the week and come into the game and get penalised on a different picture, it's pretty hard. It is very hard. I asked Lawrence several other questions about the laws and the refereeing of them. I wondered if the TMOs had been asked to butt out because I did not think the high tackle was being policed as vigilantly as it should be and as strictly as it was at the World Cup. Another changing picture for players and crowds. Lawrence said; No, TMOs have definitely not been discouraged to be involved and we are really happy with the current level of involvement with the referee and 2 x assistant referees encouraged to own as many decisions as they can. This means less stoppages and more on field ownership which is what everyone is after. We have the odd PK for a high tackle but nothing serious enough to warrant a formal review with the TMO involved. There have been no formal citings. We are seeing far better technique used by players. I wondered if assistant referees needed to get more involved after the howler when Jordie Barrett was allowed to kick a penalty ten metres forward from the true mark. It sometimes looks as if junior assistant referees are reluctant to guide a more experienced colleague in the middle. Lawrence said; We acknowledge we got the place of Jordie's kick badly wrong. Assistant referees being more involved and contributing is a key push in SR Aotearoa. We firmly believe a team of 4 approach is needed to accurately officiate the modern game. We are continuing to work on role clarity and we have even started trialling new positions the ref and ARs take up at lineouts so we can cover more of the game. We know we have space to get even better with our teamwork. There are positives. The offside line has been better policed and the game has opened up as a result. And the accurate refereeing of side entry has really cleaned up the game. We all remember Brodie Retallick having his shoulder dislocated by RG Snyman ahead of last years World Cup. That would not happen now. Lawrence said; We have seen some excellent work from AR's who in some games have called 5-6 offside PKs which is two-three times more than normal/pre covid rugby. The increased space has been seen very positively by players, coaches and the public. Our mindset is you have to "be clearly onside OR you will be deemed offside". We acknowledge we still need to be more vigilant and accurate close to the goal line. We are very pleased with the efforts coaches and players have made to straighten their entry. It's also been encouraging to hear players say they feel safer and less banged up when they are trying to jackal/turn over the ball. There are certainly many positives as Lawrence has explained. But the fact remains that the laws are way too complicated for the public, players and even the very top referees. Too often they are changed on the whim of creating a better spectacle for the professional game. We are looking through the lens from the wrong angle. The laws should be founded on what is best and safest for grass roots rugby. They should be clear, way more concise and with an emphasis on safety. At the moment its still a jungle out there; the players are always close to the edge, trying not to lose their heads; and as the retired Glen Jackson might say; It makes me wonder how I keep from going under. Rugby needs a simpler, clearer message.